The CardBoard
NCAA seriously considering letting transfers play immediately. - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: NCAA seriously considering letting transfers play immediately. (/thread-14216.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: NCAA seriously considering letting transfers play immediately. - ColoradoTree - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 05:36 AM)81alum link Wrote:Liberalizing transfer rules makes it less necessary for the most successful programs to develop their own talent since they will instead be able to shop for it.  They can wait until other schools recruit, train, and test high school talent and then swoop in and take the best.  Rather than high schools being the feeders for college teams, college teams will become the feeders for college teams--there is far less risk in recruiting a known college talent and correspondingly far less responsibility to improve their football skills.  Who is to say that Nick Saban would not have come to Christian McCaffrey and offered him a shot at a national championship if he jumped ship?  Maybe CMac would have said no, but that is the sort of scenario that would play out in many places.  The college game appeals to many of us over the pro game precisely because this kind of behavior is not common at the moment.  Turn the college sport into a marketplace of fungible talent that flits from school to school and the college game will no longer hold any advantage over the pros.

Now, as for the players.  Is it in their academic best-interest to transfer for football?  I have advised hundreds of transfer students (mostly not athletes) over the years and it is NEVER a smooth process, even under ideal conditions.  Transfer students graduate at lower rates and earn lower grades than "native" students--mostly because of the wasted courses and bureaucratic hurdles they have to overcome.  Different universities often have radically different academic requirements, necessitating the taking of more units.  My experience is that practically no students who transfer from one four year institution to another four year institution graduate in four years--meaning the new class of mercenary transfer athletes will likely need to stay in school after their athletic scholarships run out.  I do not believe this to be in the best interest of the students--except perhaps for a few future pros who will find bigger stages to showcase their talent before leaving without a degree.

The fact that transferring students are less likely to graduate in four years is concerning, but I think you could solve that concern with a requirement that the new institution guarantee a non-athletic scholarship for an additional year beyond the expiration of the athletic aid, so that they can finish their studies at no cost. 

Something similar could be done with grad transfers.  While I generally like grad transfers, I've disliked the fact that a player is basically funded for just half of a master's degree.  All transfers, graduate or undergraduate, should come with guaranteed non-athletic scholarship money for that extra year beyond expiration of eligibility, which should generally allow undergrads to graduate and grad transfers to get a master's degree.  It could be an athletic scholarship, too, but the point would be that these kids wouldn't count against the team's scholarship limit while they were finishing up their studies. 

Does anyone know if something like that happens now, at least on a voluntary basis?  It would seem to be a competitive advantage for attracting grad transfers.  "Football will cover the first year of your master's, but don't worry, we'll cover the second year."  Of course, the NCAA would probably deem that a violation!

Cui bono? - Redrum - 09-07-2017

If one thinks that overall a football player is the prime beneficiary, just look at who is pushing this.  $Big Foo$ball.  This is not some ancient wrong finally being made right.  It's not primarily about a football player getting better access to a better education.  It's cherry-picking talent, a second bite at the apple for coaching staffs. ( And, of course, a fruit metaphor.)  And, I predict it will come to pass. 

I would not be surprised if, at some schools,  a secondary "academic scholarship" work-around is contrived so that "underperforming" players are humanely offered regular student scholarships at cooperative institutions to make room for better transfer talent on football scholarship.  Beats having coaches trying to drive off lesser talent to make room.  Of course, that would never happen.

Re: Cui bono? - washingtonismoney - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 09:36 AM)Redrum link Wrote:If one thinks that overall a football player is the prime beneficiary, just look at who is pushing this.  $Big Foo$ball.  This is not some ancient wrong finally being made right.  It's not primarily about a football player getting better access to a better education.  It's cherry-picking talent, a second bite at the apple for coaching staffs. ( And, of course, a fruit metaphor.)  And, I predict it will come to pass. 

I would not be surprised if, at some schools,  a secondary "academic scholarship" work-around is contrived so that "underperforming" players are humanely offered regular student scholarships at cooperative institutions to make room for better transfer talent on football scholarship.  Beats having coaches trying to drive off lesser talent to make room.  Of course, that would never happen.

So in other words:
1) Good schools benefit
2) "cherry-picked" i.e. good players benefit
3) bad players also still have scholarships
4) For some reason this is bad?

Struggling to see why, even on its own terms, the scenario you present is bad.

Re: Cui bono? - stupac2 - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 10:27 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Struggling to see why, even on its own terms, the scenario you present is bad.

Well, it's bad for competitive balance. But competitive balance in CFB is already really bad so I'm not sure that's a compelling reason. I also think it's pretty difficult to know how this would shake out, plenty of players already turn down offers from big name brands to go elsewhere as recruits, it's not clear why that would change for transfers.

Re: Cui bono? - washingtonismoney - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 10:34 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Well, it's bad for competitive balance. But competitive balance in CFB is already really bad so I'm not sure that's a compelling reason. I also think it's pretty difficult to know how this would shake out, plenty of players already turn down offers from big name brands to go elsewhere as recruits, it's not clear why that would change for transfers.

Right. As Bob noted earlier in this thread, other sports already have a free-transfer rule. Maybe some of the bigger fans in Olympic sports can comment more definitively than I can, but it doesn't *seem* like there are brobdingnagian exoduses from the have-nots to the haves. Why? Well, probably because of the reasons people noted elsewhere on the thread: it's a brobdingnagian hassle, and if you're a star player for Small School X or Bad Team Y, you have a system that's set up to help you thrive. (Definitionally! You're a star player.) So why disrupt that by moving to Big School Z? Some people will take the risk, others won't. It's all an individual choice, which is great, because freedom and individual choice are generally good things.

We would literally *never* accept this logic in any other field. "You can't work for Amazon because your startup needs you." "You can't transfer to Harvard because blah blah blah."  B.S. While pro sports get away with these kind of labor restrictions -- and to some degree I think they make sense -- pro athletes are compensated with millions of dollars. So I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. Either offer lots of compensation for players' abject lack of freedom, or give them freedom. Having it both ways is ridiculous.

Re: NCAA seriously considering letting transfers play immediately. - ColoradoTree - 09-07-2017

There's certainly potential for abuse, as Redrum notes.  But regulations can be put into place to curb that abuse.  And the abuse Redrum rightly notes could happen--underperforming players are offered regular student scholarships--already happens in the form of dubious medical retirements.

In my mind, if a player wants to transfer to another school and continue to play football, fine.  Don't make him sit a year.  (Again, there should be limits on this; the player has to satisfactorily complete the current term before he can transfer.  But he shouldn't lose a year of eligibility.)  The new school picks up the football scholarship, and should be on the hook to let him complete that degree program once eligibility expires.  Schools already push "medical retirements" on players they feel are underperforming to make room for replacements, so at least in a more liberal transfer system, the kid would have an opportunity to continue to play football and complete his education elsewhere (or stay at the first school and no longer be a student-athlete).  I see this as opening up another avenue for players.  In theory, it should result in a more efficient allocation of talent across college football, as the 3rd-string RB at Alabama could well be a starting RB elsewhere, and improve his game sufficiently to attract NFL attention. 

One thing that would create absolute chaos is the departure of a coach.  Buyout clauses in coaches' contracts would become astronomical, because a top coach leaving one school for another could result in dozens of players opting to transfer elsewhere, since the coach they signed to play for is no longer there.  You'd completely understand schools for wanting to protect themselves with massive buyouts, too, since they'd have to create some disincentive for coaches bailing on School A to go coach at School B immediately.  It would be fascinating to see how schools will navigate that thicket if it comes to pass.  You could see an up-and-coming head coach at a MAC school looking around at open Power 5 jobs, but he could be effectively off limits if he has a lot of years (with a correspondingly large buyout clause) left on his deal.  You'd see more coaches decline to sign extensions to give themselves a better shot at getting a better job, knowing that signing an extension would limit mobility more than it would now, which should have a dampener on recruiting, too, as players are less likely to commit to a program when the head coach won't even commit to being around past the coming year.  (Which could create a cycle of a hot coach in the middle of his contract being unable to recruit as well toward the end of it, making the on-field product worse, and thus making him much less of a hot commodity when he actually becomes available.)  Anyway, it'd be fascinating to watch. 

Of course, players wanting to transfer out will be limited to schools that have both the availability to accept a player in that particular class and at that position as well as the desire to accept transfers, knowing that's a scholarship they can't spend on an incoming player out of high school, so it's not like half a team will suddenly abandon School A and disperse to the rest of college football.  But a big enough chunk could decide to leave that a coach leaving one school for another would be an even weightier decision than it is now.  I'm not pointing this out as a justification for restricting transfers, but schools will have this discussion before agreeing to any rule change. 

Re: Cui bono? - Mick - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 10:42 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:We would literally *never* accept this logic in any other field. "You can't work for Amazon because your startup needs you." "You can't transfer to Harvard because blah blah blah."  B.S. While pro sports get away with these kind of labor restrictions -- and to some degree I think they make sense -- pro athletes are compensated with millions of dollars. So I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. Either offer lots of compensation for players' abject lack of freedom, or give them freedom. Having it both ways is ridiculous.

For pro team sports, it helps to adopt the perspective that the athlete is an employee of the league, not a specific team; not unlike an individual who works for a division of a large company.  Intra-company transfers are easy, quick and painless (except for the politics, I'm just talking about the mechanics) and the employee technically goes on a new payroll, but it's the same basic monolith.

Two teams have to play each other, really it's an entertainment.  Giants fans buy Giants tickets, Dodgers fans (largely) buy Dodgers tickets.  Each division is merely a geographic division, so trades and free agency are common and immediate.

Re: NCAA seriously considering letting transfers play immediately. - fullmetal - 09-07-2017

I think the rich get richer.  Successful programs with lots of booster money can go after proven talent instead of taking chances on 3* recruits.  Half the guessing game of HS recruitment is whether players can make the transition in skill (performance) and maturity (academics/environment).  If you take that unknown out of the equation, your return on time investment is much higher.  And there's a lot less time spent on basic skills development.

As for the kids, this would definitely cause coaches to pay more attention to their players and take better care of them...but I could also see situations where a kid announces a transfer and it doesn't go through at the last minute, and maybe the schollie spot he vacated has already been filled.  Lots of moving parts.  Worth the risk?  Maybe.

At a large American high-tech corporation I used to work for, I saw a number of internal transfers blocked by current 1st level managers due to "business need."  (That arm of the company did not fare well as its particular strain of management culture was monolithic and distinct...)

Re: Cui bono? - BostonCard - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 11:16 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17321.msg199401#msg199401 date=1504806150]
We would literally *never* accept this logic in any other field. "You can't work for Amazon because your startup needs you." "You can't transfer to Harvard because blah blah blah."  B.S. While pro sports get away with these kind of labor restrictions -- and to some degree I think they make sense -- pro athletes are compensated with millions of dollars. So I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. Either offer lots of compensation for players' abject lack of freedom, or give them freedom. Having it both ways is ridiculous.

For pro team sports, it helps to adopt the perspective that the athlete is an employee of the league, not a specific team; not unlike an individual who works for a division of a large company.  Intra-company transfers are easy, quick and painless (except for the politics, I'm just talking about the mechanics) and the employee technically goes on a new payroll, but it's the same basic monolith.

Two teams have to play each other, really it's an entertainment.  Giants fans buy Giants tickets, Dodgers fans (largely) buy Dodgers tickets.  Each division is merely a geographic division, so trades and free agency are common and immediate.
[/quote]

I believe that is the model for MLS.

https://medium.com/@isaacccccccccc_94128/unpacking-the-major-league-soccer-business-model-827f4b784bcd

Quote:MLS teams don’t have owners in the classic sense: they have Investor-Operators. It’s actually an important distinction when considering the MLS business model. Unlike other American sports leagues, MLS isn’t structured as a legal cartel where a number of competing interests work together to facilitate healthy competition. Instead, MLS Investor-Operators are all financially invested in the same business entity — Major League Soccer, LLC — and succeed and fail together. They all made their initial investment in the LLC, and they all receive a pro-rata share of the profits if and when MLS generates a profit (or they can write off their share of the losses, should MLS lose cash in a given year.)

BC

Re: NCAA seriously considering letting transfers play immediately. - TreesAndBirds - 09-07-2017

I'm not sure where I ultimately come out on this, probably depends on the details, but here are some (unconnected) thoughts:

Although I dont think the business analogy works perfectly here, I note that almost all states (not California) allow businesses to enter into non-competition agreements with their employees for a limited time period. The rationale is that if the company is going to train you and share its confidential info with you, you shouldnt be able to compete with them for a limited period. That seems very similar to the rule NCAAF is currently operating under.

I'm unclear, are schools supposed to commit to 4 year scholarships, regardless how well the player performs, but the player can transfer at his discretion, especially if he performs above expectations and can go to a more high powered school?

One of the nice aspects of the grad transfer rule is that it rewards graduating. The grad transfer rule will likely become irrelevant if the new rule is enacted.

The NCAA is moving towards earlier commitment dates, but now possibly making the commitment weaker. Would commits be able to change schools before they even started? One of the big weaknesses in the current system is that a player can commit, and a month later the coaching staff can move on to another school. Will we be significantly weakening the value of a commitment? The transaction cost to change schools before even enrolling is low. Or will the above problem not be addressed?

The implications for basketball could be greater than football, where one guy matters a lot more.

I wonder if this could be done on a trial basis first, maybe only FCS schools, to get a sense for how this might operate and to work out kinks. Yes FCS very different than FBS, but might still provide some useful information.